Musings and Sometimes Rants about the non-equal status of Fathers in Family Law and Parenting. Additionally periodic comparisons to the treatment of men compared to women in other areas including health care.

Thursday, May 6, 2010

There has been much written on Abortion in the National Post (NP) over the past week in which I have offered copious comments. The following is my most recent based on a Lorne Gunter posting here.Those I refer to in my short essay are regular commentators on the NP's blog.

An issue like abortion boils down to the individuals moral compass and subsequent viewpoint. It deals with the ethics and values a person holds and indeed how much the propaganda of feminists has permeated their thinking process.

Feminists hold "abortion on demand" as one of their prime pillars. It is sacrosanct and, to them, boils down to dominion over their body no matter that another human also had a part to play in the pregnancy, the vast majority of which were between consenting partners.

Feminists want complete reproductive control (the Marxist philosophy of monopoly) and if they screw up on the control side, they want complete governance to dispose of their mistakes, also Marxist in nature despite, as mentioned above, two parties involved.

A goodly number of men have stated they must be right and must acquiesce to this mantra. We have acquiesced our legitimate role in creation of life, which has transferred to other areas such as family law where we are discarded as visitors to even those whom were born, not aborted, if we get to see them at all. Some patriarchy that is! In other words, feminists have won as they get complete control of reproduction, termination of life and ownership of children when born at the end of marriage. Between co-habitation and marriage we have a probable family breakdown rate of 50% within 30 years of living together. Cohabitation ends much faster than marriage. Men, pay for all this marriage breakdown and abortion in taxes, child support, spousal support, and many extras.

The feminists in this country then take it further and say not only do we want all this Marxist central planning over population control but we want the state to pay for it. Many men have also bought into this utter nonsense as well because they are highly feminized. The propaganda over the years has worn them down, they throw up their hands and said "shucks I have to keep peace let them have it." They now believe they are being chivalrous by kneeling at the altar of uncontrolled abortion and have been co-opted into the further consumer shopping for the right sex of the child by aborting the developing life because it’s the wrong gender. Gee it’s not what I wanted lets terminate this life and try again.

Its eugenics by another name.

It will lead to moral collapse, as a likely outcome and by allowing sex selection; those who support abortion on demand are leading the charge.

I posit most Canadians, when faced with the right information, will choose to restrict abortion in a reasonable manner. After all, we are such a polite country - are we not?

If we leave it to the feminists, we cannot survive as a culture and eventually a stronger force will take over. It is called Islam and one only needs to read the daily paper(s), especially those in Europe, or watch the world news to get an idea of their strength and our accommodating weakness.

Mr. Pilgrim represents the accommodating, passive side of the equation although he says he is pro-life. It was like pulling teeth to get him to admit it. Joe Shmoe represents the completely feminized faction and a mere sock puppet of feminist desires. I represent the side of pro-lifers who want restrictions and no tax support unless medically necessary.

What do we want to leave for our grandchildren - if anyone gets to have any in the future - the eroding of our values, population and the onslaught of a totalitarian religion - or something better and different? By 2050 we will see we are much closer to half the country being foreign born. It’s not far off.

About Me

I am Politically active and right of centre on most issues with the odd exception such as legalization of "Mary Jane".
I advocate on changes to Family Law - an incredibly dysfunctional arena where parents are pitted against one another and children are the victims.
My picture will sometimes show me as a younger man simply because I like them.

Feminism On Trial Powered By Ringsurf

Counting 1 - 2 - 3

Leading causes of Injury to Women 2006

In 2006, unintentional falls were the leading cause of nonfatal injury among women of every age group, and rates generally increased with age. Women aged 65 years and older had the highest rate of injury due to unintentional falls (59.7 per 1,000 women), while slightly more than 19 per 1,000 women aged 18–34 and 35–44 years experienced fall-related injuries. Unintentional injuries sustained as motor vehicle occupants were the second leading cause of injury among 18- to 34-year-olds (18.7 per 1,000), while unintentional overexertion was the second leading cause of injury among women aged 35–44 and 45–64 years (13.7 and 9.3 per 1,000, respectively). Among women aged 65 years and older, being unintentionally struck by or against an object was the second leading cause of injury (5.7 per 1,000).

Injury related Emergency Department Visits

Unintentional and intentional injuries each represented a higher proportion of emergency department (ED) visits for men than women in 2005. Among women and men aged 18 years and older, unintentional injuries accounted for 19.9 and 27.5 percent of ED visits, respectively, while intentional injuries, or assault, represented 1.4 and 2.7 percent of visits, respectively. Among both women and men, unintentional injury accounted for a higher percentage of ED visits among those living in non-metropolitan areas, while adults living in metropolitan areas had a slightly higher percentage of ED visits due to intentional injury.